HOME | DD
paradigm-shifting β Quantum Field Diagram
Published: 2010-01-13 01:34:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 2992; Favourites: 18; Downloads: 62
Redirect to original
Description
Yes, this is a very lose and metaphorical explanation. What else would you expect from a simply deviation?
Want to know more? Then get off ur lazy butt and Google yourself up some research! Well, I guess you would actually have to sit on your lazy butt to do that so I'll rephrase to -- "take a break from the pr0n and go get yourself some knowledge!"
Related content
Comments: 45
Just some related things:
"When we examine the world and make a theory, most of the theory describes the tools of our perception rather than the world"
-Robert Anton Wilson
Also:
"We can never perceive the world as it is since we are limited by our categories of perception [such as space, time and causality]"
-Immanuel Kant
"If the theory of evolution is to be accepted, this means that our senses and our understanding developed for survival in the savannah, and not for perceiving the world in a true and correct way."
-Nietzsche
So... "Every perception is a gamble". Without God, the practice of science is a pointless exercise, since we are most probably forever doomed to be unable to find the truth about the world (if there ever was one, since in a materialistic universe everything is fundamentally meaningless).
π: 0 β©: 1
Well we insult God by calling him God, anyways. We use the term "God" in the sense that we are not appreciative, respectful or thankful. We use it to say "I am selfishly covering my own ass, out of fear for my own wellbeing". Typical human mistake of fearing what we do not yet understand and assuming that we have no way to understand.
In Christian School they taught me that "God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Always was and always shall be" and they proceeded to say that "no human could ever understand the concept of infinity".
If you realize that space-time is non-linear and see points in time as geography on a map rather than events flowing in a straight line, then it is extremely easy to understand infinity. Especially if you can accept that you can't ever "see the whole map" in front of you at once, and that there is nothing wrong with that.
So much for Parochial School. lol
π: 0 β©: 1
There is no no doubt our perception is limited. An atheist would blame that on evolution, a Christian on Adam and Eve.
I am still not sure we can even know how and why it is limited, and if we could, would that be anything comparable to a proper perception, an "illumination"?
If we had the Theory of Everything, we probably would still live our everyday lives with faulty assumptions (such as having a word class of nouns, even though philosophically it's clear that substances (~objects) don't exist.)
I find it intriguing that we are even teaching our computers "object-oriented programming languages". We are delusional, but some delusions are just so useful.
π: 0 β©: 1
The problem is that we insist upon finding the end of a road which has no end. Eventually people will realize the infinite nature of potentiality and instead of becoming upset when we don't find that imaginary wall that we insist on slamming ourselves into -- we will see life as a journey in which advancement simply continues and education is indefinitely expanded upon.
We insist that subjective truths are universal truths and then we wonder why we're always fighting each other. If these subjective truths truly were universal then there would be no fighting. It would be easy enough to prove things conclusively. However, life is not so simple or boring.
Illusions do not have to be faulty, they are things we create and we need to create them. The illusion of physical existence allows us to explore many different options. The problem is when we create illusions we call "lack" and "scarcity" and "limitation" as we insist that things only work one way and can not work any other way. Thats how we screw ourselves.
We create imaginary walls and boarders. A psychological prison. This is not to say that we can not create productive illusions for ourselves. The very nature of light is illusion. Reflections form images as they contrast with darkness. Its not a "bad thing".
We just need to grow up as a race and stop seeing life like a bunch of grown up toddlers and start seeing what really is for what really is -- and explore new things from the mindset that we are on a great journey or adventure -- instead of treating life as a Mc Donalds Drive Thru as we rush in a hurry to get nowhere fast.
π: 0 β©: 1
If we see everything with no biases and classifications, nothing makes any sense. So we have to make illusions for ourselves to get on with anything.
"Nothing is true, everything is allowed."
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, well we both know that thinking is flawed
Examples:
Universal: if you jump off of the sears tower, it is highly likely that you will die
Subjective: raw tomatoes taste horrible
As you make the concepts more complex, human ego manifests insecurity to cloud judgment so we confuse which type of truth is which.
Examples:
Objective Universal: there is more than one right way to perform a task
Objective Subjectivity: there is one way which i feel works the best for me personally, when it comes to performing this task
Skewed Clouded (subjective masquerading as universal): my way is the best and only way, if you do not to it my way then you are an idiot and a horrible person and there will be harsh consequences if you defy the status quo
π: 0 β©: 0
quantum physics is really amazing, it opens a whole new world.
I'm still on high school, so I'm not "officially" learning it... just trying to do it on my own. (got interested in it at first when watched What the bleep do we know?)
unfortunately all my friends either hide under the table when I drop the word "quantum-..." (even before I started at "physics") or they look at me with a "drop-dead" face (my word for a "WTF!!!!! holy CRAP!" face) and accept anything I say as true... omfg! I wish I could really go studying quantum physics already, who knows.
in other words... could you tell me if I'm having it right and correct me if not? (when I say something about it ofc.... not like now, when I've posted a long, nonsense comment)
π: 0 β©: 1
Quantum Physics is the glue that binds reality together. As such, theres a lot of other fields of study you need to delve into to have a more enhanced understanding. Lucky for you -- to study all of this, you need nothing more than a half way descent Internet Connection
You also don't need to be a genius or math guru or any of that bullshit. Quantum Physics is abstract perception, so leave the Star Trek DVDs on the shelf!
All Quantum Physics really is, is a made up name. A label. With many definitions to attempt to define it, most of which fail.
So if you can understand that QP is merely a word, then you can get past all of the debate and drama and really open your mind to the core of what all this shit is actually about. If you pay any attention to the debates, you may as well be watching 20 monkeys fighting over the same banana
They each justify their so-called claims to this banana using the same old political and dogmatic views.
Heres the bullsh...erhm ... "reasons" we tend to hear:
- its a new religion!
- its pseudo-science!
- its magic!
- its ...
Yeah I don't want to risk either of our stomachs getting upset by the smell of the bullshit, so I'll move forward
What all of this is, merely is waking up to see the true nature of reality and the Universe. Though its absolutely awesome when things can be proven in a lab -- it really is more of a personal journey.
Most of it can't be proven in a lab because you're dealing with what can not be seen with the eyes, smelled with the nose, touched with the hands or heard by the ears. You're dealing with an entirely different level of perception.
The key here is to do as much research as you can and experiment with the concepts. Test them out in your life. See if they actually, honestly do work. They have worked for me and my life has changed profoundly and continues to -- but -- I don't want you to take my word for it and you absolutely should NOT take my word for it.
Have fun with it. See it as an experiment and an adventure. Theres no harm in dabbling with the concepts because never will you find a QP concept that suggests you do something unethical, dangerous or destructive.
Also -- the true experts in QP realize and verbally acknowledge that at our current level of evolution and understanding -- there is no such fucking thing yet as an expert in QP. Anyone who claims to be such an expert and claims to have a full grasp on QP -- chances are -- they don't actually know jack shit about the topic and are just talking to try to win the approval of their peers.
Add me to watch. Read my journals. Ask questions. Thats your starting point. Many of my journals have exactly what you're looking for. If you feel you can't find what you're looking for, simply ask me. I can not guarantee to have any answers but I'll probably at the very least be able to point you in a direction so that you can research things and find the answer yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks a lot!
won't you mind me when I'm telling total bullshit... I usually do.
I don't really know what to ask, somehow I feel very weird...
well... we create our own reality, don't we? why would people create realities they don't like, and are things like things with many victims, like earthquakes and tsunami's created by many people, one person or something else?
and what would I create? I don't really want much money,(well... it could be useful sometimes I guess, but I don't believe it makes persons REALLY happy) or to be famous, better than others in class... (again, I would like it sometimes... but I don't believe real happiness is inside such things. it are the "classic" things humans want, and when they got it they want more of it. I don't think that shows that they're happy... its only the idea they would get happy when they attain those things.)
so... what would I create? and how can I learn to create things wisely?
so far all questions that popped into my head quickly. I would probably ask other questions to, not only about creating your life... its simply where I thought about first, but life isn't going to end in a few days ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Your reactions are perfectly normal, so have no worries
You're questions are like asking the marital status of the number 5 or the political orientation of a tuna fish sandwich. Its not that there is a right or wrong answer to these, but merely that the questions are irrelevant
It's like the holographic scientist said in the movie "I, Robot" -- "in order to get the right answer, you must first ask the right question"
So your very first step is not to find answers, you need to find questions.
A question and an answer are much the same thing anyways. You might ask a question and receive the proper answer, but you're always going to respond to the answer with yet another question. Not because you don't get it or are stupid or any other such nonsense -- but because questions and answers are all the same thing 
So if a question leads to an answer, which leads to another question and its answer, which ... etc ... then you start to see something inconvenient but liberatingly obvious... you're on a journey. You're walking a path. That there is no destination because the most important thing is the journey itself.
When you have a party, whats the most fun? The beginning, the end or everything in-between? Well, thats obvious. Everything in-between.
When it comes to reality creation, you're trying to build a sky scraper out of chocolate pudding. But at least on a positive note: you're awake and aware enough to realize that the sky scraper can be built
Now lets look at some good questions
The first one to ask yourself is -- why are you asking me things you already know the answers to?
I've already answered every question you've asked but really, you already knew the answers. Just look at the obviousness of it all and you'll know you knew. So perhaps the next good question is: why do most people who want good things, reject good things?
The answer: because in a world where we are taught the lies of limitation through thought policing -- good things seem about as unrealistic as expecting a pink elephant to fly through your neighborhood, smashing out car windows every time it takes a shit
People create the future in the present. Well, theres a no-brainer, right? So when you define your present based on your past and then create your future based on what you define the present by -- then is it any wonder that you experience a same shit different day sort of cycle?
People focus on what seems real and rational to them. So if good things seem like wishful thinking and bad things seem common place -- then expectation and desire are NOT in balance.
When you desire what you do not expect and you expect you do not desire -- thats the reality you create. Where good things rarely happen and bad things always do.
What you resist, persists. Resistance means you put energy and focus into something. So if you put energy into a problem but never into a solution -- then don't be so shocked when the problem gets worse and never better
π: 0 β©: 1
is it? well that's a nice thing to hear... but somehow my brain isn't working straightforward.
seriously, I cannot think any more... >_< OMFG!
and maybe I DO know the answers of my questions when I think about it now (actually I do...).
and maybe my unconscious-self wanted a simple answer indeed... but actually I don't really know. (I might sound stupid, but I really don't...)my conscious-self thought something very different, but I guess that isn't the first time. (if you want I'll say what I thought I wanted to attain with those questions, but if you don't I won't bother you with it...)
but one thing I think you have it wrong is that I'm afraid of a complex answer.
a question with an unexpected, complex answer isn't a burden, but a blessing. well, not really exactly like that, but its great to ask questions and find unexpected things. but maybe again my conscious mind is playing tricks with me again.
you know what, I'm going to write down every good question that comes into my mind tomorrow... however, like I said before, it all seems so weird.
normally I'm a question machine, but its like I've dried out with no reason -_- I guess you get me thinking again...
π: 0 β©: 1
No worries. You can ask me anything about anything. As long as you don't mind my rants, I don't mind your deluge of questions!
The main thing that seems to break peoples brains is the concept of "oneness". Although I have quite a few analogies to avoid the brain damage
They say that we are one. One with God and the Universe. One with each other. One with everything. Space-time is one thing. Matter and energy are the same. All is the same, yet we are encouraged to be unique and different individuals, not to mention the concept of duality. So people give themselves a headache from what they see as a contradiction in terms
Well, the analogies here are simple.
I am an individual, independent free-thinking person who makes his own choices. Who is surrounded by lots of other individuals. I live in one city with them called Chicago. We are ONE as a city, yet AT THE SAME TIME separate. If you tried to look at me from orbit of this planet without the benefit of a very high powered telescope, you would see one glowing "dot" on this Earth that we have named: Chicago.
You would see this dot as ONE thing. ONE entity. Looking only at ONE dot. Yet this one dot is made up of millions of independent individuals. Then you notice that there are lots of other dots in proximity to this dot we call Chicago. Other cities. As your hypothetical space ship leaves orbit and moves slowly away from Earth -- now you see a bunch of dots, although not very many. These dots we call CONTINENTS are land masses upon which the cities reside.
So now you move out even farther from Earth and you see only one dot. The entire planet as a whole. You venture even further away and you see a bunch of dots we call planets and asteroids and what we call a sun or star. You move out even further and it all becomes one glowing dot.
Then you notice theres lots of other dots around it. That this one dot is in a star system. With a large star we call Alcion at its center and the Star we call Sole -- which is what Earth and its neighbors orbit around -- is on the outskirts of this celestial neighborhood of stars.
So now you shut down your sub-light engines and engage your warp drive. After awhile at Warp speeds, you issue the order for "all stop" and you notice that this celestial neighborhood of stars has become a dot surrounded by other similar dots, to form a galaxy.
You can go on and on until the entire universe itself is merely a dot.
This is how we are all separate, yet at the same time -- all one
π: 0 β©: 1
mmm... I guess I understand... well, actually I don't. XD
and, by the way, of course I don't mind your rants
are we literally the same? Am I LITERALLY you..? If that's correct, its very hard to imagine... but still.... at the same time we're all separate... OMFG! I'm going to think about this more...
[link] in this part Dr Quantum explains about entanglement. He says at the ending that we're still entangled because we where once all one, at the big bang.
But when you do something with one particle, the other responds instantly... and we're all still entangled... does that mean everything, EVERYTHING, happening on earth, in space, everywhere, affects us?
Or have I understood it wrong?...
π: 0 β©: 1
"are we literally the same? Am I LITERALLY you..? If that's correct, its very hard to imagine... but still.... at the same time we're all separate... OMFG! I'm going to think about this more..."
NO!!!
π: 0 β©: 1
ah okay!
thanks! now I really do think I understand. I don't really know how to say it in English... but I think I understand. (if you noticed, I'm not really that good in English... I only avoid things I don't know how to express them XD)
π: 0 β©: 1
According to Quantum Physics, the universe does not care about human opinions regarding can, can't, want, don't want, like, dislike, convenient, inconvenient, good or bad. All it knows is that you have something in your focus and so that thing manifests.
So if you think "I am not good in English" then you won't be. If instead you say "I am always improving my English skills" then you will advance faster than you ever thought possible!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm self taught with English to (or however you call it, at least I've never had lessons or such things...)
but I think English isn't the best example for me XD since mostly I actually am good in English (good enough that others know what I mean at least..) but there are many things I'm, according to others, very good at... but which I think I'm not.
but of course this idea works with anything... (and I really have to get rid of my negative thinking! its everywhere, its a disease!! YIKES! no... seriously, I often think more negative than positively... >.<)
π: 0 β©: 1
No, ~Sakonitus is like the disease! She said so in the video! Buwhahahaha!!!
There is no such thing as "perfect English" so only focus on being understood by others. Don't focus on trying to "get it perfect"
So, have no worries!
π: 0 β©: 1
yea, even I keep getting better with Dutch
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd be content if we could build an Alcubierre engine.
π: 0 β©: 1
Very cool. I had never heard of this until now
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, you see, I believe in hardcore silence, not in the, no offence meant, spiritual shit you wrote there. While that of course has come claim of validity, and I am by no means an atheist (on the contary, I know that god[s] exist), I think it is of no use to try and mix quasi-religion/spirituality with science. Of course, sooner or later science boils down to one's beliefs (such as believing whether two plus two equals four or not), but it should not be confused with philosophy. Naturally, numerous frames of thinking and reasoning exist, and should exist, even if they are apparently at variance, but that is merely because our perceptions are different. Thus, should anybody claim that they possess absolute knowledge of an "objective reality", that one either is a fool or a liar.
A human being, finite, with very well defined limits and boundaries physical and spiritual, will never understand, or even know, the multiverse altogether, save by deus ex machina. But deus ex machina would be a direct suspension of our free will, thus contradicting our very nature and the nature of free will as God's or the gods' gift.
So, really, that's a huge whopper right there.
Just like wikipedia, by the way
I meant no offence, mind you.
π: 0 β©: 2
To claim to know that anything exists other than yourself is a logical fallacy. Proof otherwise is therefore impossible, for we all must make assumptions about "facts" in the everyday experience. I assume that everyone I see exists as I do, though I can not prove it. So no matter what, it comes down to what you believe. If you believe in God, it is only a belief, and no more. If you believe in science, it is a belief based on naturalistic explanations rather than supernatural, but a belief no less.
You don't KNOW anything other than your own existence. You BELIEVE, with strong conviction, that God exists. Spirituality means so many different things, to label an objective science with a subjective meaning as spiritual, you make another logical fallacy.
Quantum theory shows us the beauty in all the things we do not yet understand. We can see how very unpredictable the universe is, and how ever elusive and mysterious it is as we continue to learn more. Not to say we may never understand the ultimate truth of the universe, but as of now, many many things are left as mysteries. That doesn't mean that God exists, simply because there are things that are unexplainable as of now. In fact, if he does exist, science would very well be able to explain it, and if it does, I will be rather happy. But there is so much evidence to the contrary, I strongly believe that there is probably no God. I don't think there is, but I'm not saying I KNOW. Just like you can not, and do not, know there IS one.
Even if you have "experienced" him yourself, (albeit with one of your 5 senses, I'm sure,) you cannot be sure that your weren't hallucinating, or that what you were experiencing was not it's true self, and could indeed be something of the nature of a higher dimension or higher understanding. And yet, you've no evidence to support anything as some kind of "personal experience."
So you can't really know ANYTHING for certain, as TimeWarrior was saying.
But you can make educated guesses, and I would hope those educated guesses would indeed be educated, rather than blind and ignorant theory crafting about a complex and abstract universe that no one alive can presently fathom.
Foolish philosophers claim that they know, and that other people are wrong. Wise philosophers wonder if they are fools, and can never be convinced to know anything. Only that they can believe, rather.
π: 0 β©: 3
God only exists because some had to create the universe. It might be the universe itself. In my context, God refers to "the Supreme Being". Which, you know, really must exist, given that there is a perceivable hierarchy of things. Or perhaps there isn't, which is all the more a proof, because then something outside created this apparent chaos we inhabit.
Belief in God is dumb. Going to church and praying is retarded. Something or someone created you, period. Why chant cheesy hymns to it? You never asked to be created. No thanks. It's not a gift, your existence, it is a fact.
Also, you'll never understand anything. Read my reply to TimeWarrior.
π: 0 β©: 0
FYI -- Quantum Physics has found circumstantial evidence of the universe being designed and thus, a designer is needed for something to have been designed. It has to do with advanced math involving a concept called "the universal constant". Shits way over my head, I suck with math
Needless to say -- solid proof of "God" will never, EVER exist materialistically. God isn't up for a cup of coffee or to be interviewed on CNN and even if he was -- no matter how much he proved himself to be God -- skeptics would pull excuses out of their asses as they always do.
π: 0 β©: 1
Now you are getting into the field of intelligent design, which is utter nonsense in every sense of the word.
To think that a watch needs a watchmaker is a good analogy, but doesn't hold up scientifically. Life is so rare and precious, yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was designed, and just as well with the universe. If god is real in ANY sense, it would be explained by a naturalistic explanation, for to impose that a supernatural God would exceed all scientific method is a very straw man argument, and is illogical to say the least. Life by design is a tool used by pseudo scientists or religious fanatics (or spiritual fanatics) to complete some holier than thou agenda.
If the God that is the God of all, or the God being energy, exists, then it can be proved by science eventually. But a supernatural God not only makes science irrelevant, to try to use science in defense of the supernatural God is a disgrace to the very scientific method. The point is that if there IS a God, it is not a simple entity people think it is, and it is not supernatural. It would be, in fact, the very idea of naturalism itself, the epitome if you will. The very essence. It would be all that is and the very consciousness of all the dimensions and beyond. And at that point, why call it God? It is simply existence at that point. But whether or not God is, or if God is would not make a difference to the benefit of mankind and the quality of life itself.
The point is, no well respected scientist, cosmologist, biologist, or any other field of *ist* would ever say that God is the reason for all. That is such a lazy and easy way out. The real meaning of everything is either very abstract, or there is no meaning at all. But there is no theory of intelligent design that holds any academic credit or real world substance. The theory was decent when it was first proposed, until the very nature of quantum physics itself showed that the pre-existing God of the Bible, Quran, Cabala, Norse mythology or even ancient Sumerians are nothing more than myths to explain what science can now. It was because of the ignorance of the people at the time if it's inception that religion believes what it does. But all those religions are dated now, thanks to science.
See, as you very well know, science is the only thing that affects our quality of life. Praying and well wishing will not accomplish a thing. It is only by real world action that anything can get accomplished, and only by science and technology can our civilization advance and further the quality of life for our species.
In order to be prosperous as a race, we will use technology to reach the unreachable, no religion. It will be man who uncovers the secrets of the universe and it will be man who will traverse light years into the future or the past. Not God. God, if it exists, is merely existence istelf. Calling it God is simply pointless, because energy will suffice just as well, without the man in the cloud illusion.
And for anyone to claim to know the proof of God due to personal experiences are crazy, a liar, or gullible by their own senses. The point of love, life, and the betterment of mankind does not revolve around whether God exists, whether you think he does or does not, or whether Thor was a woman. All that depends on the heavy thinkers of today, the people who think outside of the norm and who invent new, wondrous things to help mankind, not to enslave a bunch of sheeple.
There is NO empirical, objective data to prove or disprove God, and may never be. But I guarantee you, it WILL be a naturalistic explanation that shows God's existence, not a supernatural one. Even if it is by a math equation, that is a naturalistic explanation. It cannot be both.
π: 0 β©: 1
You assume I have the same definition of God as you do. Thats one of your mistakes.
A human is a creator. He or she creates his or her own reality and yes -- even new life when a couple has sex and a baby end results. A salmon is a creator. It creates more salmon.
All life creates more life.
So how can you be so sure that the creation of a universe is not purely a method of a life form procreating itself in the most natural possible sense of the idea?
Because you can't understand how procreating new life wouldn't require a penis and a vagina means that no higher forms of life could possibly reproduce in ways you have no knowledge of?
You're way too hung up on the societal labels we all have been brain washed with. You preach quantum physics as if it were a Religion in angry defiance of everything and everyone who has pissed you off.
You have failed to get the point.
ANYTHING you rationalize based in can, can't, should, shouldn't or anything that implies anything is greater or less than anything else -- comes from the ego, is subjective, is societal, is dogmatic, is religious, is irrational and illogical and does not float.
You are trying to enforce science using personal preferences and it does not work. You can not tell me the existence of God is or is not irrelevant as a statement of fact because you can not prove or disprove its relevance or lack there of anymore than you can prove its existence or lack there of.
You are not being open to knew knowledge if you act authoritative. You are doing the same thing as the people you've been bitching about. Its a hard truth to face but examine your own words using objective logic instead of the obvious ANNOYANCE and FRUSTRATION that your words are based in.
π: 0 β©: 1
What you explained makes a lot of sense, but I never assumed anything about what you believe. I stated some things, but nothing judging what you personally believe. I simply don't KNOW exactly what you believe, and am not arrogant enough to pretend to.
Now what you said made sense, like I said, and I am not closed to that idea, and in fact would like to know more. But wouldn't that be a naturalistic explanation for God if that is what you call God? (I am, in fact, assuming that just in this instance.) Either way, I would like to hear more about that.
You know, though, I'm not really hung up on any societies labels, because I am the kind of person who absolutely hates labels. I don't like the idea of them (which is why I asked if you would kindly not label me, or make assumptions, if you indeed were.) Now if you are confused by what I mean when I say a certain phrase, you should just ask. Because I may say some word like naturalism doesn't necessarily mean I am meaning the dogmatic idea that society calls naturalism, or any other ism for that matter. Believe it or not, I actually listened to you way back when you told me not to become slave to the preset isms in this world. You may just be mistaken by my exact intent in a lot of the terms I use, but I assure you, they are no typical. It would just take a little time and conversation to full understand what I mean.
We are very alike in this aspect, I think, and I think we have a little bit of miscommunication between us. We very well may agree on something, but we may not understand each other's intentions without vigorous mind ploring. You are not the first person to misjudge me. Amanda and my family do it all the time, I am simply an easy person to misjudge. It's hard to explain, but there are times I seem angry when I am really not, and this is not just a lame statement. There are times I have to assure Amanda that I am not mad, because she could swear I am at times, simply because I have some kind of quirky difference in my personality, which makes it easy for people to misread me in many occasions.
Which leads me to that I was not ranting angrily. I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but I really wasn't.
I'm not being authoritative. I don't believe in absolutes, or that I even know anything for certain, so I couldn't possibly be Authoritative. Let us try and start this over shall we? I think we got off on the wrong hand.
π: 0 β©: 1
Fair enough. It was not so much that I misunderstood what you said, but your presentation of the facts. Your "tone" for lack of a better analogy.
Also -- I firmly believe that one can be frustrated without being filled with rage. One does not need to be bouncing off the walls in an insane episode in order to have something annoy the crap out of them
I think God is the Creator and that "God" is an ignorant fucking term. I absolutely hate the word "God" and I use it reluctantly.
God is simply at the highest level of the universal food chain by default of having created this universe. Now, the interesting thing is: that food chain may very well be as eternal and timeless as the multiverse itself!
Imagine if there are entities infinitely more evolved than the one we so ignorantly call "God"? Its hard to imagine, but isn't it a cool thought? To think that even the creator of this universe is still in an unending process of evolution?
Cave men would see us as Gods. Ants would see us as Gods. Anything significantly lower in awareness to us would see us as Gods. It doesn't mean we are though, so it doesn't mean that God is actually God -- and just because it doesn't mean that, it also does not mean that this entity we call God doesn't exist. It is our expectations and the shit we talk about this being, which do not exist.
Maybe one day we will get up to the "God Level" of the food chain as people in our current stage of development look up to us as being "Gods".
Let me explain why people refer to The Creator as "God".
You see -- we worship this entity in order to blame him for everything we hate in ourselves. He is being used as a scape goat. Disrespected through the selfish ass kissing, much like a peon subordinate might ass kiss the CEO of a Corporation. That peon might think the CEO is a merciless prick -- but he is a merciless prick he wants to stay on the good side of and if at all possible -- advance up the corporate ladder in the process.
We treat God like the CEO of the universe and every day fear that he might lay us off to purgatory or fire us into hell.
But mostly -- he is just a convenient being to cast blame on. God took my baby. Why God why? Oh why God do you hate me? Why have you given me such a horrible life? Why did you do this to me God?
Its all fucking denial. Its us not wanting to take responsibility for our own actions and be able to admit that God did not take your baby, the asshole drunk driver did. God does not hate you, it is you who hates yourself. Refusing to acknowledge your flaws so you can correct them is what has given you this horrible life and God did not do shit to you -- you have been neglectful unto yourself! (using "you" in the "general all encompassing" tense).
People who blame God (or even The Devil) for their problems are insecure and thats the bottom line.
God is simply the entity who perhaps in some other universe eons ago -- was once just like us. He evolved. He evolved to the point where creating a universe is a form of self expression and as easy as how we create and upload deviations to dA!
That this creation process is a natural process to perpetuate life. Its not magical. That through us -- he too can learn and continue to evolve.
On our level of awareness, we have enough trouble learning from our own lives. Imagine if you had the capacity to learn from the lives of every living thing in a universe of your own creation! Would that not be one hell of an efficient way to learn?
π: 0 β©: 0
"Both Religion and Science are one-eyed binocular salesmen" --Marshall Masters
π: 0 β©: 0
None taken
I was actually not looking at this from a spiritual standpoint and I actually use words like spiritual very RELUCTANTLY seeing as the definition of the word has been fucked with. Spirituality is a misunderstood aspect of actual reality, where as SciFi TV / The Media / Dogma / Etc.. has turned it into something to either be afraid of or laugh at. Like the proverbial little boy who cracks up every time he hears the word "penis" or the proverbial young adult woman who goes into a state of fear, denial and self-hate when she is told she is pretty.
There is plenty of "hard evidence" to support Quantum Physics though I will admit, the bulk of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to hard evidence).
Before I mention the hard evidence I would like to open your mind to the circumstantial evidence; not for the purpose of trying to convert your point of view to mine -- but simply just to make you question yourself for your own sake
Quantum Physics is, due to our limited awareness and technology; as such to where the causes are seldom seen but the effects are quite profound. Without being able to use at least one of our 5 senses to detect the cause, that is when evidence starts to begin to put things into the circumstantial category.
I mean no offense when I say; when one has a limited point of view and assumes that the 5 senses are all there are to being able to sense or prove anything -- this is when we are forced to say "i don't know and furthermore, can't at this current time know, if ever". We assume the 5 senses are all there is and that not only are there no others -- but if there are, that there is no way to detect them and prove them to be able to quantify their existence.
Well, that in and of itself is a perfect example of creating ones own reality and not for the better, either. If you do not explore anything, you will never find anything. Or is that too intelligent to be practical; as the old saying goes?
If you do not explore the possibility of senses, perceptions and other "tangible" evidence of the existence of this, that and the other thing -- then similarly to the "flat earth" mentality we tell ourselves: this is what i see, therefore -- what I see is the truth.
I don't know about you but I see a flat Earth when I look around me. Yet we know it is not flat. We needed to invent the technology to launch things into space first -- and -- we also needed to be open minded enough to believe it was possible to invent it.
If no one on Earth even believed that space flight was possible then I assure you that we would not be in space right now. So is it more scientific to view the unknown as "spiritual" in the more dogmatic fear it / laugh at it sense of the bastardized definition? How silly and arrogant is it really to assume something does not exist so therefore exploring the possibility would be paying it an undue compliment as exploring it by default requires it to be considered as "actual science" lest there would be nothing to explore if it was not considered as that
Furthermore -- the majority of things we consider to be tangible and physically provable actually in fact are not because they are things we experience and must "take each others word on". So we make choices as to whether or not to believe a person, based on our own subjective viewpoints of probability -- which are not very scientific at all and based on a very limited amount of data -- most if not all of it based on past choices where we have done this exact same thing.
So we base what is or is not real on assumptions, presumptions, subjective opinions, dogmas and the list goes on.
They say China exists. Well, I've never been there. How do I know it exists? I see people from there who claim they come from there or have been there. Well, politics proves that large scale lies are easy to spread virally. So logically, they could be lying or perhaps -- those people have been lied to and only thought they were in China when in actuality, they were not. We see pictures of China. Pictures can be faked, especially at our current level of technology. Video can be faked. If I had the money I could travel there but how do I know I really am? I am taking the word of the pilot that it is where we are actually going, the pilot is taking the word of the airport and the airport is taking the word of governments and scientists. So, wheres the actual proof? Its not there.
You can say you have experienced something but without physical evidence to support it, you have no way of proving you have experienced it. Even with physical evidence to support it, you still actually have no tangible proof, as per my previous example.
It is also a fact as I stated that if you look at anything with an electron microscope, that all you see are waves of energy. I can't tell you what exactly that energy is, that it really exists, why it exists or anything about it. We can look into that microscope and observe it but so what?
All we are seeing is reflections of light and shadow, which comes in through our eyes and interpreted by our brains which spit that data out to our consciousness. Our consciousness makes the assumption that the organic hardware is working properly and that what it is seeing is accurate.
The eyes don't see, the brain sees. The mind makes the judgment calls on what is being seen. But based on what evidence really do we have to be judges of anything?
You can shoot no end of holes into any so-called tangible proof.
This in and of itself is proof that what we deem as physical and tangible really isn't at all -- or else we wouldn't be able to so easily shoot all of these holes into the concepts as concept is what all of this is. Concept is non-physical but concept is what we use to judge what is and is not physical.
It is also easy enough to trick the 5 senses. Its done all the time.
Psychology is a real science but can you prove to me that it exists? No, you can't -- because it is based on experimenting with concepts to obtain a so-called physical experience interpreted by organic hardware we can not prove is working properly, observed by a consciousness that we can not prove is making a proper observation at all. We still think with a "flat earth" mentality.
When you see green, can you prove it? How do I know that what you see as green is not how I am seeing blue? Or that how I see blue is not being seen by you in the same way in which I see purple? You can't.
As for physical evidence -- there has been plenty of lab tests dating all the day back to the days of Einstein. The most notorious one is the quantum entanglement experiment which Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance". Do some open minded Googling and you will see that Quantum Physics is not all "spiritual mumbo jumbo" and that lab tests have been done, repeated and quantified.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not saying, gods, that it's mumbo-jumbo. Just hold the spiritual stuff and it's all right. You know, SchrΓΆdinger's cat doesn't tell us anything about the universe, save that it's a great paradox. And that's it. Your existence is a huge big paradox. That fact that you can't prove anything but your own existence is a paradox, because you can. Cf. Descartes's Meditations, or St. Anslem's works, or perhaps Thomas of Aquinas. Or if those are backward to you, Bertrand Russell. Logically most things are demonstrable, including that you cannot exist, that movement is unthinkable, that numbers are finite, and that all horses are the same colour. So, really, logic is a lie, albeit a handy one. It gives us nice paradoxes, which we can ogle at and say "Isn't that marvellous? Wow!", and say that logically it follows that one day we'll understand it. Nope, we shan't.
So, since we have our paradoxes, why not just go along with them the best we can, doing our science, pathetic little thing it is, and occasionally tell the audience "Hey folks, it's all just a handy lie. Work it out for yourself."
Because the greatest paradox of all, you know, is that while you can logically prove everything, empirically you cannot, since that would require an infinite number of experiments in an infinite number of sets. That's not exactly feasible, sort of.
Actually the multiverse you speak of is a paradox. It contains everything, right? So it should contain itself. But then it should be bigger than itself. OK, that might be the case, who am I to argue for my sorry little four dimensions. But if it contains everything, it should contain nothing, too, because nothing is part of everything. Also, it should contain everything that's outside of it, which, I hope you will see, will require some effort from things.
You/we'll never understand things. We cannot make educated guesses either, because we haven't got anything in our hands. Some say that we haven't even got hands. I know my quantum physics, thank you, and while it's pretty interesting, it will never answer the questions they and you hope it might. Because it cannot. We can come up with new ways of utilising stuff, but we'll never know why it does what it does. Why does 2+2 equal 4? Why do electrons interact? How come cats can exist in waveform?
All you can do, is to come up with new ideas and test them in the situation you are in. So the Wrights dreamt of flying? Great! Had they tried and failed, what could that mean? a) You're doing it wrong, b) You can't fly. And that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less.
We're saying the same things, though, but we draw different conclusions. You say it's real, I say it's about as real as everything else. There's a huge difference, I'm sure you'll see.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you very much
I hope you find the rest of my gallery to be equally inspiring and entertaining
π: 0 β©: 0
It seems almost redundant to say that the mere "reality" portrayed by our brains is but a watered down, constant, feed of information that we can only not decipher all of, but plainly don't even receive the majority of it. Therefore, there is absolutely and unequivically more than what we can perceive.
Just a thought, but I was thinking about matter and antimatter, visa vi quarks, anti quarks, and such formations and hydrogen and antihydrogen, and I wondered, in somewhat of a new light, if dark matter or antimatter was the universal "stuff" of some other reality, with our universal "stuff" being the antimatter to their matter.
Just like the age old philosophical diddy "Is my green your red?"
Just a thought. Of course we can't prove any of those loosely put together thoughts of mine just yet, but I am excited to see where the future of science unfolds.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, thats the big joke on us. We're finding out that our brains (hardware wise) can perceive it but our mentality (software, for lack of a better corresponding analogy) hasn't evolved to that point yet but it looks like that evolution is on an exponential jumpstart otherwise we wouldn't even know this much
Think about it like installing Windows 98 on a brand new computer. Could you? Well sure ... it would be an unholy headache and would be phenomenaly pointless but yeah -- you COULD. If you wanted to put yourself through that sort of state of abuse and limitation
So the point is -- our "hardware" is build to do what its build to do which is more than we can fathom right now. But our awareness is dulled through the societal brain washing so we're running shitty mental software on perfectly good hardware and also in turn -- we don't take very good care of the hardware either, for that matter!
π: 0 β©: 2
And, to a greater degree, the massive illusion of time that we have throughout the entire world. So many people don't understand that space and time are intertwined together like a fine thread, and that it can be bent and interwoven with enough energy.
People, for the most part, also know absolutely nothing about quantum physics, or black holes, wormholes, quarks, aniquarks, antimatter, dark matter, or even fully understand the nature of an atom or a molecule, let alone a simple physchosematic digital analogy.
A lot of people don't think, and it makes me sad.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, its all a self esteem thing. We are taught "you can't think" and this is re-enforced through low self esteem. I recall a time in the not so distant past when I thought all of this stuff to be "over my head" to the point where I could "never get it". The reason beyond what I just mentioned -- is that people forget that the finer points of the math and jargon and semantics are the least important to most of us and should be left to the scientists. The MOST important part and the part that MOST of this is made up of -- is practically applicable abstract concept!
In so-called "Christian" school I was taught that "only God can fathom the concept of infinity" which now has proven to be BULLSHIT. When you see time as a type of geography rather than a linear flow -- "infinity" is no more a pain in the ass to understand than looking at a road map (only you are perceiving it through 4th dimensional space-time maps rather than a flat map of how to get from Chicago to Los Angeles). The point being -- no concept is beyond humanity and learning takes time. But the more you learn, the more you can learn -- and at a more rapid pace. It is the proverbial snowball rolling down the mountain side which creates a full blown avalanche.
In fact -- one of the few things we've actually gotten RIGHT is our blending of time and distance as we measure how far apart things in space are in the measurement of LIGHT YEARS. This makes the automatic assumption that distance and time are the same thing -- not two different things.
Light isn't a speed limit, its a tool of measurement!
Also -- the universe does not exist within a single flow of time as most people think. All flows are parallel to each other, but they aren't single flows.
People living in a solar system 400 light years away are living both 400 years into the future AND 400 years into the past.
Depending on exactly how you bend space in your traverse -- when you travel to that star system -- you will end up 400 years into the future or 400 years into the past. This flow however is parallel to our current time so you have not traveled 400 years into Earths future nor have you traveled 400 years into Earths past.
Now if your starting point IS that star system -- then if your return trip bends space backwards, you will end up arriving back at earth in such a way where regardless of how much time you spent over there -- you will have only been gone for a fraction of a second.
Equally true -- depending on how you bend space -- you can arrive at Earth 400 years ago or 400 years from now.
Time and space really works more like Dr. Who than it does Star Trek.
Back To The Future is a great trilogy but thats all it is. Whether you change a timeline or not depends on your intent. If your intent is not to change anything -- then your actions -- regardless of what they are -- will go with the normal flow of time and will not interfere with anything in the Universe.
If your intent IS to change something -- you've still changed nothing because by proxy of the Multiverse, your changes are simply shunted into a parallel universe / timeline where they are supposed to have happened. So if you went back in time and killed your parents before you were born...
From your perspective: You return to your current timeline / universe to find that you've not changed a damn thing.
From the altered timeline perspective: People wonder what such a seemingly innocent couple could have ever done to piss of someone from another Universe.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus"
FYI -- though God exists, he is The Creator -- he is not God. In fact, he isn't even "a he".
We call It "God" out of a sense of fear and ignorance -- NOT out of respect.
What God can or can not do is irrelevant because he decided to give us all free will -- which allows us the ability to either agree or disagree with him, which in turn means; we can obey, bend or break his laws.
We are the rock God created which he can not lift, because he has endowed us with the ability to say: NO!
π: 0 β©: 1
The idea of light being a tool of measurement has really piqued my interest. I must admit, I have missed these discussions with you, and I still, to this day, am surprise at how in my place you put me at times, so to speak (like on the subject of my opinion [ or lack thereof] of Linux.)
I do indeed need to get some of those quantum theory dvds you were talking about, if you're still willing. But if I know you as I believe I do, I'm sure you are willing. I hope so at least.
I am still iffy on whether or not a Creator exists. I mean, it makes sense for it to go both ways in every way I can possibly think of the nature of things. But I am still very skeptical and am not really going to objectify on the matter. I can only say I am pretty confident that God probably does not exist. And if "he" does, I would not be surprised, but in fact, pleased.
And I know Senior Creator would not have a sex, obviously. I grew up Christian, so it is kind of a habit to refer to God as a he, not to mention the rest of the blatant sexism throughout El bibble, but that's another story.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes I am still willing and that should be discussed more in private channels
My understanding of what God is ... and even if I am right, it is not to say that my view is the only truth nor the entire truth ... but.... think of it like this...
First thing to keep in mind: time does not exist the way we think it does. this will help you to keep this in mind.
All things are true simultaneously, even the things that contradict and especially the things that contradict -- as they only contradict because we've been brain washed to think information must exist and that it can not exist in full duplex parallel to each other. We forget that things that are opposites can reside next to each other -- they don't have to crash into each other.
So I am you and you are me, yet I am not you and you are not me. We are all a direct part of yet simultaneously separate from the whole of creation -- which includes God.
All is separate, yet all is one. Thats how it works. God isn't looking at us from out there, nor is he inside of us like an alien monster about to burst out of our chests. lol
Its a very 4D+ concept and you're not gonna get it if you think "third dimensionally".
3D is about what you can do with your 5 senses. There is much more beyond those. So you need to think abstractly in order to understand concepts at higher levels of awareness. Otherwise -- you're trying to stick a square peg into a round hole and no matter how much you try to brute force the bitch in there with a rather large mallet -- it still doesn't fit right
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, I know all about that.
I am actually quite surprised by the amount of people I know who don't "get" the brain/computer analogy, when the two are almost perfectly synonymous.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thats why discussions like this online are important -- because once upon a time, you and I both "didn't get it" and as time goes on -- many who currently "do not get it" will get it
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed. Perhaps I am too hostile against people with a submitted ignorance. Oh well. I think knowledge, and the pursuit of it, is too beautiful and integral to life and survival and happiness to just submit one's self to ignorance as many have. Some cannot help it, some simply haven't gotten there yet. But the ones who bother me are the one's who just don't care to try. Kind of like how I am about Linux at the moment.
Being a hypocrite is awesome!
π: 0 β©: 1
If you don't try its your own problem. Others can run away from you and you can run away from others -- but you're stuck being you!
π: 0 β©: 0